Since the mid 1980s, the majority of temperature stations in the United States USHCN network have been converted from Liquid in Glass (LiG)/Cotton Region Shelters (CRS) measurement instruments to maximum-minimum temperatures system (MMTS) instruments.

A number of researchers have suggested that the introduction of MMTS sensors has created a strong cooling bias in maximum temperatures and a moderate warming bias in minimum temperatures, resulting in an overall cooling bias in mean temps.

fx - based on some lazy skimming, I get the impression you attach a lot of importance to:

1) cooling trends happening in specific regions and/or over short periods of time2) the fact that climate change happens naturally, even without human activity

those are both true statements. however, neither of them contradicts AGW.

the statement that the global average temperature is increasing over the long run allows for the possibility of regional or short term cooling trends. it only requires that those be outweighed by temperature increases elsewhere and/or eventually. and that what we think we're seeing.

and the fact that climate change happens naturally does not rule out the possibility of human activity altering the climate, any more than the fact that fire happens naturally rules out the possibility of people starting fires.

fx - based on some lazy skimming, I get the impression you attach a lot of importance to:

1) cooling trends happening in specific regions and/or over short periods of time2) the fact that climate change happens naturally, even without human activity

those are both true statements. however, neither of them contradicts AGW.

the statement that the global average temperature is increasing over the long run allows for the possibility of regional or short term cooling trends. it only requires that those be outweighed by temperature increases elsewhere and/or eventually. and that what we think we're seeing.

and the fact that climate change happens naturally does not rule out the possibility of human activity altering the climate, any more than the fact that fire happens naturally rules out the possibility of people starting fires.

The adjustments are nonsense, and this is actually easy to show using data from stations that never changed instruments, or even better, continued to use both to be able to calibrate and compare the new instruments data.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."― Mark Twain 🔭

I'm happy to see my prediction that you wouldn't discuss here was wrong. So why do you think the fact that certain stations never changed instruments or calibrated/compared negates the perceived need for overall adjustments?

And why do you choose to focus on regional/short-term adjustments that increase warming trends when the long-term global adjustments reduce it? Is it for the same reason that you focus on regional/short-term cooling trends when the long-term global trend is towards warming?

You don't even have to be an expert to realize how desperate and stupid things are, when the method is described,

Quote

Lets take a look at the difference in temperature trends between MMTS and LiG/CRS stations. To calculate this, we will be assigning all USHCN stations to a 2.5×3.5 lat/lon gridcell, and identifying all gridcells that have at least one MMTS and one LiG/CRS station reporting each month for the past 40 years. By limiting our analysis to these gridcells, we will ensure that the spatial coverage of both sets remains the same. Its worth noting that the sensor identification we are using is from 2009, and all stations currently MMTS will have made the transition to MMTS sensors at a different time over the past 26 years. This means that any bias to the temperature trends introduced by sensor switching should show up in the difference between current MMTS and CRS stations.

That is the sort of complicated bullshit that we see all the time, in an effort to deny what the actual data shows.

What one does, if there is some question about new instruments adding changes to data, is compare climate trends from a station that changed over, with a station that did not. Since there are multiple stations to use, and because despite the distance, trends are very much the same from different stations, it isn't hard to do.

Blue Hill still uses the same instruments to avoid any artificial changes added by instrument changes. So it's simple to compare with Amherst, which does use the electronic sensors. If the new instruments caused some change to the trend, it will show up.

We can also use other stations, since an actual trend will show up in stations all over.

Of course somebody who believes won't be swayed by evidence.

But even so

Using data is beautiful

Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 05:49:15 AM by F X

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."― Mark Twain 🔭

Hansen and Mann both pointed out that you don't even need that many stations to establish a trend, since stations separated by hundreds of miles still show the same trends. (if the climate changes, this is certainly true)

But using Amherst and Blue Hill is a good example, due to the extensive documentation and care Blue Hill puts into gathering data.

While I consider it a complete waste of time to try and convince a true believer, looking at the data itself is never a waste of time, and I enjoy it. A lot.

Looking at hundred years of data tells us a lot about climate.

Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 06:05:47 AM by F X

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."― Mark Twain 🔭

But you posted a quote from someone saying that the adjustments were based on looking at differences between trends in different types of stations and called that bullshit. It appears that they are doing exactly what you say they should be doing.

I'm happy to see my prediction that you wouldn't discuss here was wrong. So why do you think the fact that certain stations never changed instruments or calibrated/compared negates the perceived need for overall adjustments?

And why do you choose to focus on regional/short-term adjustments that increase warming trends when the long-term global adjustments reduce it? Is it for the same reason that you focus on regional/short-term cooling trends when the long-term global trend is towards warming?

You are doing it again. You make up things, then expect somebody to answer your made up ideas.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."― Mark Twain 🔭

Lets take a look at the difference in temperature trends between MMTS and LiG/CRS stations. To calculate this, we will be assigning all USHCN stations to a 2.5×3.5 lat/lon gridcell, and identifying all gridcells that have at least one MMTS and one LiG/CRS station reporting each month for the past 40 years.

The bullshit part is "To calculate this, we will be assigning", because it's a bullshit method. You can actually compare new and old instruments, but you need to actually compare those two things.

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."― Mark Twain 🔭

Lets take a look at the difference in temperature trends between MMTS and LiG/CRS stations. To calculate this, we will be assigning all USHCN stations to a 2.5×3.5 lat/lon gridcell, and identifying all gridcells that have at least one MMTS and one LiG/CRS station reporting each month for the past 40 years.

The bullshit part is "To calculate this, we will be assigning", because it's a bullshit method. You can actually compare new and old instruments, but you need to actually compare those two things.

Isn't that what they're doing though? They're doing it on a large scale, and you're complaining that it doesn't work at the level of individual stations. But that's not the point. The point is to make the overall record more accurate. Not the record of any individual station.

I'm happy to see my prediction that you wouldn't discuss here was wrong. So why do you think the fact that certain stations never changed instruments or calibrated/compared negates the perceived need for overall adjustments?

And why do you choose to focus on regional/short-term adjustments that increase warming trends when the long-term global adjustments reduce it? Is it for the same reason that you focus on regional/short-term cooling trends when the long-term global trend is towards warming?

You are doing it again. You make up things, then expect somebody to answer your made up ideas.

The adjustments are nonsense, and this is actually easy to show using data from stations that never changed instruments, or even better, continued to use both to be able to calibrate and compare the new instruments data.

I kind of suspect you don't really get the reason for or methodology of the adjustments because you don't seem to be familiar with or understand statistics in general. You have had a lot of problems in the past with ideas like trends and averages. The ideas involved in the temperature adjustments are very much statistical ideas, so it makes sense that they would seem like bullshit if you don't really understand statistics.

Then again, I also kind of suspect your whole schtick is just one big troll.